Tag: #gujarat

1st NFSU National Technological Moot Court Competition 2023

Posted on

About the University

The National Forensic Sciences University, with the status of an Institution of National Importance is the world’s first and only University dedicated to forensic, behavioural, cybersecurity, digital forensics, and allied sciences. It was established by the Parliament of India through Act 32 of 2020 with the objective of training and creating forensic experts for the country and the world.

About School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies

School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies is established to impart professional education with a special focus on forensic application in all allied areas of law and policy framework. The school aspires to be the leading provider of forensic justice understanding to all professionals from different areas of governance including justice administration. Through forensic lenses it focuses on crime prevention, crime reduction, crime mapping, and speedy and fair dispensation of justice, thereby contributing to the overall welfare of people. The school ultimately envisions producing sound techno-legal experts who can contribute in all areas of governance

Details about the event

It is a privilege and pride to announce that SLFJPS, NFSU is organizing the 1st National Moot Court Competition 2023 from 24-26th March 2023 at National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar Campus, Gujarat in Physical Mode. The moot court competition promises to present an interesting challenge to the participants across the legal spectrum, as the moot proposition has been drafted to test the teams and their approach to contemporary issues. Since NFSU is the only forensic sciences university, the moot proposition is directed towards the application of forensic sciences.

Important Dates

  • Last Date for Registration: 13. 03. 2023 11:59 pm.
  • Last Date of Memorial Soft Copy Submission: 18.03.2023
  • Submission of Hard Copy (3 Sets from each side): 24.03.2023
  • Competition Date: 24-26.03.2023

Eligibility Criteria

Any student pursuing law from a recognized institution

Location

National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar

Registration

Registration fees: 4000/-

Registration Link

https://forms.gle/epkA8qsFr5PJGZp17

Brochure

Moot-Court-Competition-brochureDownload

Contact Information

For any query, please feel free to contact us:

  • Email- mootcourtcommittee@nfsu.ac.in
  • Phone no.- 7719992345

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela through Wife Vaghela Bhumikaba Karansinh vs. the State Of Gujarat

Posted on

Case Number:

Letters Patent Appeal No. 699 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No. 6853 of 2021

Bench:

Chief Justice Vikram Nath

Justice Biren Vaishnav

Date of Judgment:

23/08/2021

Relevant Acts:

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949

Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985

Facts of the Case:

The appellant being in jail was detained according to the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2), and 81 concerning the order dated on April 06, 2021, in the backdrop of registration of offenses against the appellant.

Contentions were raised under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution about the detention of the appellant stating that the appellant was arraigned in the offenses where he does not fall within the scope of the definition of “Bootlegger” section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.

Advocate Mohddanish M. Barejia, representing the appellant-detenue, argued that the detenu does not fit the definition of a “bootlegger” as defined by Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, and that there was no violation of the law, indicating “public order,” entailing his detention.

Assistant Government Pleader Shruti Pathak rejected the prayer, claiming that the detaining authority’s powers and procedural precautions were not designed to allow people to continue criminal acts, and thus the detention was justified and is in accordance with the law’s procedures.

The issue before the High Court:

Whether the subjective satisfaction exercised by the detaining authority deserves no interference?

Whether there was any disturbance of public because a solitary offense has been registered against the detenue?

The ratio of the Case:

In the case of Aartiben W/o Nandubhai Jayantibhai Sujnani vs. Commissioner of Police in L.P.A. No.2732 of 2010, the court cited a clear distinction made by the Supreme Court between public and law.

The court stated that the term “public order” implies that not every assault or harm to a specific person results in public disorder. Any law infringement impacts order, but before it can be called to affect public order, it must affect the community or the general public at large. Thus, a simple disturbance of law and order that leads to disruption is not always adequate for proceedings under the Preventive Detention Act, but a disturbance that will impact public order qualifies.

Based on a detailed examination of the order of detention, which includes the grounds for the custody and the materials on record, the Court examined the contentions, albeit the Court was hesitant to interfere with the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.

The decision of the Court:

The Court stated that based on the facts of the case and an examination of the law, the appellant could not be classified as a bootlegger. The Court decided that numerous instances could not designate a person as a bootlegger in this case because there is only one FOR connected to prohibition offenses.

The appeal of the Letters Patent has been granted. The learned Single Judge’s judgment and ruling in Special Civil Applications No.6853 of 2021, dated June 24, 2021, was quashed and set aside by the Division Bench and the appellant was ordered to be set free if not wanted for any other offense.

The present article has been written by Aathira Pillai.

The present article has been edited by Shubham Yadav, a 4th-year from Banasthali Vidyapith.

Latest Posts

Archives